According to the Wikispecies and Wikicommons Elymus repens and Elytrigia repens are the same/one species. But according to The Plant List, the two are two different species: Elymus repens (L.) Gould and Elytrigia repens Desv. I wonder who got it wrong? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Unfortunatey the Plant List is a mess and ca not be trusted. The administration of the Plant List is aware of the problem and are working on a solution.

Elymus repens and Elytrigia repens are the same species as both names are based on the same type and have the same basionym (Triticum repens L.).

I have updated the Wikispecies data and choosen to use Elytrigia repens as the present accepted name, as most sources I have looked in prefers to accept Elytrigia repens and only a few uses Elytrigia repens.

And another question: according to The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families [1] the Oncidium flexuosum is a synonym of this two Cyrtochilum flexuosum [2] and Gomesa flexuosa [3]. I want to know which one is it. Do you know? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

The identification of the Aloe species seem correct.

The first Yucca agrees better with Yucca aloifolia 'Variegata'.

The second Yucca is probably Yucca filamentosa.

On the orchids.... the name Oncidium flexuosum has been used two times for different plants. It is unfortunate, but it happens that botanist use a name that has been used before. This was by far more common long back in history... long before databases and internet time. So.... Loddiges used the name first, in 1820, for a plant now classified as Gomesa flexuosa. Later Lindley used the name again in 1841, probably unaware that Loddiges already published the name. Lindleys plant is now called Cyrtochilum flexuosum.

they should be at C. pubescens, reason is that FloraBase the recognised authority on Western Australian flora describes it as that, as that was photographed in WA we have to follow the description most likely used if someone was looking for it. Gnangarra 06:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

According to The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families not every Oncidium sp. in the Commons is really an Oncidium. This might cause problems to those who want to use Oncidium pictures in they articles. Same problem I had in the Oncidium flexuosum Hungaryan article, which now I renamed it Cyrtochilum flexuosum; thanks to you. DenesFeri (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Plants change name all the time of various reasons and there is no global list of which names are in current use. The view differ from botanist to botanist. Though, The World Checklist is one of the good sources and I belive Commons should follow it. Uleli (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Saw you undid some of my cultivar cat renames. There should be discussion. With Rosa cultivars there is a consensus of using trade names pro code names because the plants are more often recognised with trade names (being indeed the names used for trade) and also more memorable than the very similar code names. What is your reasoning behind preferring the codes, beyond that they are the "real" names? --Pitke (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a tricky subject. The cultivar names are global, fixed to certain plant and solid beyond the "trade games"... but sometimes not generally known. There can be several tradenames to one cultivar and also, the same tradename can be used for different cultivars, all in the purpose of selling. What to do? If choosing the tradenames here, what to do with that has different names in different countries? Should we choose a "standard country"?

However, if there is a consensus among roses, I belive Clematis should follow the same praxis for concistensy.... as long as we do note that the name is a tradename and not the cultivar name Uleli (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

{{Cultivar}} and other info could be used to define the cultivar name vs commercial names. In any case redirects from synonymous names should be made. --Pitke (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I discovered today that The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families does not contain Pteridopsida species. How come a site like this, doesn't have them? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

WCL is a work in progress and it does not contain all plants. To my knowledge, there is no global list of these plants. But you can consult different floras and specialized sites as for example:

Hello Uleli,
I'm looking for help to correctly identify this QI-candidate. As the botanical garden proclaimed it to be a rose cultivar (which I'm sure isn't correct), I suggested that it is a ranunculus cultivar based on the similarity to this picture. Though that seems to fit really well, I'd like to have that confirmed by somebody with more knowledge of plants before Poco a poco renames the picture... Can you help?
best regards, Anna reg (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your plant has no stamens. H. spectabile is similar but has stamens longer than the petals. H. telephium also has stamens, and much smaller inflorescenses than both the hybrid and H. spectabile. Compare:

According to the The Global Compositae Checklist [5] Senecio erucifolius [6] and Jacobaea erucifolia [7] are two different plant species, with two different homeranges S. erucifolius [http://compositae.landcareresearch.co.nz/default.aspx? Page=NameDetails&TabNum=0&NameId=1903cc9a-7c43-490c-8d00-2eea044155bf] and J. erucifolia [8]. Could you tell me your opinion about this, please? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that these two names represent the same plant. In the publication of Jacobaea erucifolia (L.) G.Gaertn. , B.Mey. & Scherb. there is a clear reference to Senecio erucifolius L. See , B.Mey. & Scherb., Oekon. Fl. Wetterau 3(1): 208. 1801, the refrence is onpage 209. Uleli (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato(talk) 07:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anna & Uleli - I got an automatic notification about this post - just to add, Uleli is correct, it is Nymphaea lotus. My old edit was just to move it out of the disambiguation category Category:Lotus (where it had been wrongly categorised); I put it in Category:Unidentified Nymphaea as I was not then familiar with how to tell N. lotus from other Nymphaea species. Hope this helps! (and I see there are some more images miscategorised in that disambing cat, off to deal with them now . . . ;-) MPF (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! I just saw that it was ambiguous and I don't know enough about plants to clear it up on my own... ;-> Anna reg (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

'Fraid I've just been having second thoughts - I discovered from the Flickr original that the photo was taken in Singapore Botanical Gardens. Can the closely related Asian species Nymphaea pubescens be excluded? (same problem applies to several other photos in Category:Nymphaea lotus, also photographed in Asia!) - MPF (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The asian origin point toward N. pubescens, not N. lotus. These species are sometimes united, but most floras keep the apart due to the geographical gap in the distribution. The asian N. pubescens has ovate leaves and densely pubecent (hairy) leaves beneath, while the, for most parts, african N. lotus has almost circular leaves which usually lack hairs or just a few. This being a cultivated plant can be either, hard to tell from a photo. Uleli (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Needless to say, the stem hairs are not visible (!!), but the leaves do appear to be somewhat ovate. Should it go back in Cat:Unidentified Nymphaea, or do you feel confident enough to move it across to N. pubescens? - MPF (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll move some into it (basically anything cultivated!) over the next day or two. Shows as ever the vastly greater value of known wild origin material ;-) GRIN adds a couple more species in this subgenus. - MPF (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reversed you change. As I wrote in a comment (below the summary) on 4 May 2010, it is obviously not a Colchicum bornmuelleri but another Colchicum sp., possibly a C. cilicicum (as indeed suggested in the summary: "Syrian Colchicum").

C. bornmuelleri has always a broad white throat as you can see e.g. on File:Colchicum bornmuelleri - flower3.jpg. If someone can confirm that it is actually a C. cilicicum, it should then be renamed accordingly.

Hello Uleli,
I noticed that you identified some rose cultivars during the last months and I'd like to know how you were able to do that...
I noticed Rosa 'Leggiero' (IMO quite a new cultivar to be found on a mountain in France - how do you know it wasn't e.g. Rosa 'Cocktail' or Rosa 'Bicolor'?) and Rosa 'Morgenrot' (which is perhaps an identifiable cultivar as it was found in a botanical garden)
Looking forward to your explanation (perhaps I can learn something... ;->), Anna reg (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The name can up with some rose enthusiastics and experienced gardeners and fitted well. But you are right, the identification is too vague and I have changed it back to only a suggestion. Thank you for pointing this out. It is however not 'Bicolor'. Uleli (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer (and the explanation in the file discussion page). Somehow the category identification without comment (the uploader wasn't even sure which flower was shown) and my surprise in learning that Leggioero is a Japanese cultivar introduced just a few years ago made me a bit uncertain if I could trust the identification (though generally you are one of the users I'd ask to identify something). All the best, Anna reg (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for recategorising File:Primula 'Kelly'.jpg. Am I right in understanding that you're saying it's a Streptocarpus rather than a Primula? If so, I'll rename the file. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a Streptocarpus, probably a cultivar but I can not tell cultivar name (if even excisiting) Uleli (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC).

Thanks. :-) I've renamed the file and updated the description. The label on the plant at the flower show just said 'Kelly', which didn't provide much information. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Aha, but then we have a name Streptocarpus 'Franken Kelly'. I'll prepare a cathegory page for this one. Uleli (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Uleli! I've found this file File:Paeonia officinalis Anemoniflora Bot. Mag. 59. 3175. 1832.jpg, which was uploaded by you in 2010. I don't know, which description is good: the name of the file (Paeonia officinalis 'Anemoniflora') or the description (Paeonia suffruticosa). I've found a webpage with this illustration [17], which has a description "Paeonia officinalis L. var. anemoniflora". Can you help me with this problem? Thanks in advance, --Sphenodon (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the entry. I canät explain why P. suffruticosa appeared on the page. Uleli (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Uleli,
there are once again pictures of different plants in Category:Rosa cymosa. Just want to check if I see things correctly: as you used one of the white pictures in wikispecies (and that is consistent with Rosa cymosa on helpmefind), those two seem to be correctly categorised, while the others are once again some unidentified cultivars (this one is quite obvious)?
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Rosa cymosa can not be any other that white or (pale yellow) flowered plants. See Flora of ChinaUleli (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

But even the photos of the whie flowered rose is doubtful. I don't think this is Rosa cymosa, but that is a feeling, not ãnything I can prove at the moment. Uleli (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Uleli,
I'm once again looking for the correct identification for a QI misidentified as Rosa - I think it's a rhododendron cultivar, but I'd prefer confirmation. Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is an Rhododendron, it belongs to the cultivar group called Evergreen Azaleas and this is possibly the cultivar 'George Lindley Taber', originally raised in the south of the US. Uleli (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - I'll categorise it as Evergreen Azalea and add the rest to the file description. Anna reg (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Uleli. thank you again for identifying the File:Cyrtanthus mackenii 0302.jpg. I wanted to upload more of the same plant and came across this info: http://www.plantzafrica.com/plantcd/cyrtanthmack.htm . There it says: This species consists of two colour varieties: var. mackenii, which has pure white flowers, and var. cooperi, which has yellow or cream-coloured flowers. The var. mackenii occurs mainly in the southern parts of KwaZulu-Natal, and the var. cooperi occurs mainly in the eastern part of Eastern Cape, although the two varieties do overlap in certain areas. Since the its yellow and photographed in the eastern cape, would you also agree, that it is probably the Cyrtanthus cooperi? cheers, Amada44talk to me 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have started drafting a wikipedia article on the above species, and eventually found the category which you created. Reading Shuettpelz & Hoot (2004) [1] seems to strongly suggest that raising Psycrophila to generic rank makes Caltha itself paraphyletic. Cheng & Xie (2014) [2] is a much more recent paper, but I do not have access to this, so dont know if they support Psychrophila as a genus, athough this seems unlikely as they describe C. natans as basal with the remaining species in two clades. Also google scholar searches for the two terms return 84 vs. 4 papers since 2011 with a loose search & 17 vs 0 for a tight search. Semudobia (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have written to Dr. Xie for her/his opinion in accepting or refusing Psychrophila a generic rank. At present The Plant List is accepting it. Please use the position you seem fit at present. I'll write as soon as I know more about the findings of Xie and Cheng. Uleli (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Tulipa Triumph Group: [18] Is there a real need for an asterisk in sort code field, so the Triumph group stands apart from all the rest? (yes, I know that it dominates the trade but it's still just one of sixteen groups, right?).

No reason other that more that this arrangement in other genera is that all have asterix to be listed first, before the specific cultivars (so all should have an asterix if this is followed). I have removed the asterix here.

Thanks for identifying plants. If you identify plants in such a category, please don't delete the whole category, delete only teh word unidentified, so that it is in the mother category Category:plants in Kew Gardens afterwards - or replace it by a more refined category like Category:Zingiberales in Kew Gardens - the plant doesn't stop to be in Kew gardens, because it is identified now! --Kersti (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again with helping with roses. I'm here for a quick reminder that accent marks such as in Category:Rosa 'Albéric Barbier' should be removed for the DEFAULTSORT (as well as all diacritics and macrons and all other such "additives"), because they do not sort as we want them to i.e. among with the non-accented letters as if they were so too. --Pitke (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I saw you changed the category ofthesephotos to Category:Datura inoxia; thank you for the identification (we were discussing about it in it.wiki, but we weren't sure about the species) :) this one is the same plant, can you confirm me it is definitely Datura inoxia? So I can update the descriptions and request the renaming. Thanks! -- Syrioposso aiutare? 15:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, about this other identification: we were talking about it too on it.wiki, and another user said that, at first, he tought it was Prunus laurocerasus, but he subsequently discarded the idea, because P. laurocerasus has a "tree shape", while in the photo the plant has a "flat" foliage; it is possible that the plant has been pruned (P. laurocerasus is a typical hedge plant), but in that case there would be no flowers (because the new-year branch don't bloom, and because the fruit is poisonus, so usually the plant is not allowed to bloom). Tell me what you think about it :) -- Syrioposso aiutare? 09:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed your Datura could be D. inoxia or D. wrightii. These two are very similar and sometimes treated as subspecies of the same species (subsp. inoxia and subsp. quinquecuspida). In cultivation, D. wrightii often has a violet tone in the flower, while D. inoxia is always pure white. Check this key: [19]. Also, not in the key, the veins of the leaves of D. inoxia often split and cross-connect towards the margin of the leaves - as vaguely seen in your photo, D. wrightii has veins that split earlier and a more reticulate appearance. At last the corolla is usually glabrous in D. inoxia and puberulent in D. wrightii.

Prunus laurocerasus, the are many cultivars that form low shrubs with a flat appearance without trimming. 'Otto Luyken' is probably the most common one in cultivation, at least in Sweden. But there are many more. I have some plants in my garden and they often rebloom in the fall here, so they can flower on new growth. The berries are not poisonous, but the wilted leaves, twigs and crushed seeds. All seed of Prunus are more or less poisonous. I hope this helps. Uleli (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Cereus validus of Haworth (1831) has been misidentified over the years. This has been noted by recent authors, such as Hunt & al (2006). Haworth writes about a plant with spiny flowers, which true Cereus never has. The spiny flowered plants of Haworth is belived to be Acanthocereus tetragonus. However, the plants commonly cultivated under the name Cereus validus is in fact Cereus forbesii, Anceschi & Magli (2013).

I have changed the name to Harrisia pomanensis. The diagnostic feature to separate H. bonplandii from H. pomanensis is the furrow, or line, between the ribs. It is present in H. pomanensis and lacking in H. bonplandii. (Ref: Franck, A.R., 2012 Systematics of Harrisia (Cactaceae). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. University of South Florida). The plant in the photo has a obvious line between the ribs.

Thank you for your detailled answer and sorry for writing in German (somehow I had in mind that you were a native DE speaker). Since I am not a botanist, I asked the two users who helped me with the identification a few years ago for their opinion. If they agree with you, I will move the file and adapt the description accordingly. --Leyo 22:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Leyo, Uleli: As far as I see, this sulcus/furrow in the photo in question is less pronounced compared to that in the linked photo from davesgarden. I am not sure. Anyway, according to the distribution map on page 197 of the thesis (Franck 2012), only H. bonplandii is recorded for the Panantal region of Brazil. Also "Lista de Espécies da Flora do Brasil" at that time only recorded H. bonplandii for the Pantanal region, but none of the other species of the genus. I cannot check this source now, as it seems to be out of operation at the moment. So, if your identification should be correct, it probably would be a new country record for Brazil. In my opinion, this requires a confirmation from an expert on the genus Harrisia, and moreover should be published in some scientific journal. (There exists a lot of journals, either focussing on succulents or on Brazilian floristics.) If an unequivocal identification (sufficient for publishing the finding) should not be possible based on this photo, there would also not be any reason to change the file name and categorisation from a species known from the region to a similar different one never been recorded from the area. So, any change seems to be premature, before an expert has confirmed the new identification. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've changes back with a note. Uleli (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, you are being contacted as a user who has previously [or currently] included "* Uploaded by Example" in your file uploads. A bot task has been approved to remove this specific phrase from files because it can be misleading when attempting to attribute the file creator. As an alternative, RileyBot is willing to tag your uploads with a user category instead. Please respond stating if you opt-in and if you have any specific requests (addition of user category, etc); if there is no response within two weeks, consent will be implied. Please note, this message has been left by an automated bot, however, a user will be tracking your response. RileyBot (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

My source is International Plant Names Index (IPNI), the International Code of Nomenclature and Index Nominum Genericorum (ING). The genus Bijlia N.E.Brown was based on Mesembryanthemum canum Haworth, which today is classified as Pleiospilos compactus subsp. canus. Automatically the name Bijlia becomes synonymous of Pleiospilos (the code). What complicated this matter is that H.E.K.Hartmann (1992) tried to "save" the name Bijlia by changing the type, but this is not allowed unless a conserved type is approved by International Botanical Congress. This didn't happen so Hartmans version of Bijlia is a later homonym of Haworths name, illegitime and cannot be used. I can not find any proposal to conserve the name Bijlia presented to the Botanical Congress. The only legitime name for the genus is Bolusanthemum with the type Bolusanthemum tugwelliae Schwantes. I'm affraid the Plant List can not be trused completely, it is rather full of errors and need to checked before it's used as a source. Uleli (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well no sources can be trusted completely. IPNI does never state which name is correct or which that are a synonym. And we should be careful not to do primary research here but follow other sources even if we are convinced that they are wrong. So unless there actually is some source that does state what you are saying I do suggest we do not make such redirects. --Averater (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Today I have added two pictures of Caralluma munbyana and have just realized that, some months ago, you have moved the categories 'caralluma munbyana' and 'Caralluma europaea' to 'Apteranthes munbyana' and 'Apteranthes europaea'.